Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22399774›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience2012

Identification of modulators of hair cell regeneration in the zebrafish lateral line.

Parhum Namdaran, Katherine E Reinhart, Kelly N Owens, David W Raible, Edwin W Rubel

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Leveraging Zebrafish to Study Retinal Degenerations.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2018
    Review
  19. Transmission Disrupted: Modeling Auditory Synaptopathy in Zebrafish.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2018
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Parhum NamdaranVirginia Merrill Bloedel Hearing Research Center, and Departments of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and Biological Structure, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington 98195, USA.
Katherine E Reinhart
Kelly N Owens
David W Raible
Edwin W Rubel
Merrill (United States) · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON RESEARCH CORE CENTERP30DC004661 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI RAIBLE, DAVID W, STONE, JENNIFER S. · 2000 to 2014
$11.1M
Screens for modulators of hair cell regenerationR01DC011269 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI RAIBLE, DAVID W · 2010 to 2014
$1.6M
NIDCD NIH HHS DC011269NIDCD NIH HHS DC04661NIDCD NIH HHS P30 DC004661NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC011269
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The external location of the zebrafish lateral line makes it a powerful model for studying mechanosensory hair cell regeneration. We have developed a chemical screen to identify FDA-approved drugs and biologically active compounds that modulate hair cell regeneration in zebrafish. Of the 1680 compounds evaluated, we identified two enhancers and six inhibitors of regeneration. The two enhancers, dexamethasone and prednisolone, are synthetic glucocorticoids that potentiated hair cell numbers during regeneration and also induced hair cell addition in the absence of damage. BrdU analysis confirmed that the extra hair cells arose from mitotic activity. We found that dexamethasone and prednisolone, like other glucocorticoids, suppress zebrafish caudal fin regeneration, indicating that hair cell regeneration occurs by a distinctly different process. Further analyses of the regeneration inhibitors revealed that two of the six, flubendazole and topotecan, significantly suppress hair cell regeneration by preventing proliferation of hair cell precursors. Flubendazole halted support cell division in M-phase, possibly by interfering with normal microtubule activity. Topotecan, a topoisomerase inhibitor, killed both hair cells and proliferating hair cell precursors. A third inhibitor, fulvestrant, moderately delayed hair cell regeneration by reducing support cell proliferation. Our observation that hair cells do not regenerate when support cell proliferation is impeded confirms previous observations that cell division is the primary route for hair cell regeneration after neomycin treatment in zebrafish.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedCell DeathEstradiolFulvestrantGlucocorticoidsHair Cells, AuditoryLateral Line SystemMebendazoleMechanoreceptorsNeomycinNerve RegenerationNeural InhibitionStem CellsTopotecanZebrafishEstradiolflubendazoleFulvestrantGlucocorticoidsMebendazoleNeomycinTopotecan

Identifiers

PMID22399774
PMCPMC3318954
OpenAlexW2131227793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.